BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Keyser Söze

On 6/22/15 4:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 04:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 12:44 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:52:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given
the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the
Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would
have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40
other
states) does not require a background check for personal
transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before
giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to
transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.
Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not
racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a
family
member outside the home.

It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything
about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous
surveys
with dubious accuracy.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an
appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise
transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That
should be
the first step.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.

But a different person responsible for it.

A distinction without a difference if it was in the same house the
whole time. The only person "responsible" is the person holding it at
any given time. My guess is there were a number of firearms in that
house.

The responsibility for owning a firearm isn't limited to when you are
holding it. You are also responsible for who has access to it.

It is clear that the father had no problem with the son having access
to a firearm.

Did the father know his son had a felony charge? If so he is subject to
10 years for knowingly transferring a firearm to a felon.

It is clear Fretwell wants no restrictions on gun possession.